Himachal Pradesh High Court
COPC/1397/2026 of SANTOSH KUMAR Vs SHIVAM PRATAP SINGH on 22 September 2026
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1397 of 2026 Date of Decision: 22.9.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Santosh Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus Shivam Pratap Singh …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma,
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
COPC No.1397 of 2026
Date of Decision: 22.9.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Santosh Kumar
……...Petitioner Versus Shivam Pratap Singh
…....Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Ms. Vandana Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for his having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 18.5.2026, passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.7776 of 2026, titled as Santosh Kumar v. Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and Ors., whereby afore petition came to be disposed of with a direction to the respondent/competent authority to consider and decide representation of the petitioner within eight weeks. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the
2 respondent pursuant to aforesaid direction, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.
2. Mr. Vinod Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, states that though he has every reason to presume and believe that by now, order/judgment sought to be executed, must have been complied with in its totality, but if not, same would be definitely complied with within a period of two weeks from today.
3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned counsel for the respondent, this Court sees no reason to keep present petition alive and accordingly, same is disposed of with direction to the respondent to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of two weeks, failing which petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials.
September 22, 2026
(Sandeep Sharma), (manjit)
Judge